Who can answer this question?

I can. Destiny asks, "if two people say they've been given contradictory moral information from God, how do you resolve that disagreement and figure out who's right and who's wrong?" Destiny believes you can't resolve it, and this is the problem with presuppositional arguments. But like 100% of atheists, Destiny doesn't understand what a presuppositional argument is. When we make this sort of argument, also known as a "transcendental argument," we're saying that God must* exist for morality to exist. Just as a gas powered engine must have gas in the tank to run, or events must happen for time to exist, God must exist if humans really have obligations to each other. That's the argument. It's ontological, not epistemological. In other words, we aren't saying, "if God doesn't exist you can't know what's moral and what's immoral." Instead, we're saying that without God, morality **itself** would be an illusion. Not real. The sooner atheists stop confusing everything with epistemology, the sooner they stop embarrassing themselves. Also, even if we granted Destiny’s argument that we couldn't resolve the dispute, that wouldn't mean there's no morality. Yesterday I found a drink spilled on the floor. I asked my children who did it. They all said the other child, or they didn't know. I couldn't resolve who spilled the drink. Does that mean I should conclude no one spilled it? Obviously not. And in the same way, even if we couldn't resolve this sort of situation where two people say they received revelation from God... that doesn't mean we should conclude that morality must not exist. But it's even worse than that because we don't argue that we can only have moral knowledge if someone claims to get a message from God and then tell us. That would be absurd. No, we believe that everyone has a God given conscience, and this is how we understand morality. It's the same with rationality, we don't believe God has to use a prophet to reveal rules of inference to us, we just have that understanding already built in, we can sense when something isn't adding up. It's part of our OS (operating system). Lastly, if you read the Bible you'd know that God almost always uses incredible miracles to separate the real prophets from the phonies. Moses and the Red Sea, Elija and the alter, Elisha and Naaman's leprosy, and Jesus who performed countless miracles and rose from the grave. The ultimate vindication of what He said. So that's how we'd resolve which is the authentic prophet. That's what we'd look for. Not that this is at all relevant to the moral argument.

A lot of people put god in that place in their mind where empathy is supposed to go.

There's an obvious answer to destiny's question.. Both parties are wrong. And I know this for a fact cause god told me so 😌

Mad to me that this guy has never even considered this question lol. Isn't this the stuff you try and figure out when you're like 15 years old?

People who are truly religious answer this question by saying that they have to kill the other religious group to win this argument. Their books say it even.

According to the bible, god was one of the biggest murderers.

You can't grant someone moral superiority because they say "because God told me" that's not how religious morality works.

@UltimateClint Don’t let theists tell you that you can’t ground morality in humans.

Christian here, you participate in a secular state that governs these rules and abandon trad fundamentalism as it is a toxic and antithetical practice to the teachings of any god worth following.

Morality for the most part is objective in the world. Presenting an argument as moral subjectivity is low tier bait.

they always retreat into pretending a or the hypothetical is non sense, when they realise it destroys their position it's a sign of a philosphical undeveloped mind. philosophy is built on hypotheticals

Thats easy, the one whos left standing is correct and has god on their side lol

It's a strawman argument. No one claims murder is good because of God. A similar falacy: If half of scientific research shows gravity is caused by spacetime curvature, and half of research shows its caused by penguin poop, how do you resolve this?

The bible? God's word? It seems like the best answer to this question.

but did he answer the important question: if god is omnipotent, does he know how it feels to take a dick in the ass?

god told me so

God never said killing is good. If anyone told you he says God told him killing is good, he is committing several sins at once. 1. Thou shalt not kill. 2. Thou shalt not bear false witness. AND in the beatitudes Christ said blessed are the peacemakers. So stop acting like humans can trump God's divine wisdom with "It just feels right to not kill" cuz I am a human and I say so. Moronic.

Religion is used as an excuse for having no morals

Because God would not tell you murder is good. You cannot take an open contradiction from the Bible and ask me what if God believed that, because he doesn’t. Your question is ridiculous on its face and it shows that you don’t understand religion whatsoever.

I was born with knowledge of right and wrong. I believe all people are.

the only way to resolve it is to step outside that and use something we can all evaluate like logic, harm, consistency, etc otherwise it just comes down to who sounds more confident, not who’s actually right which is dumb

I've always said if you need a book to tell you murdering others is bad, you're the heathen.

This is a question that originates from ignorance. Both partues bear the burden of proof to actually justify that they received this moral from God, an omniscient source. If one of the sides justifies their belief that they received this moral from God, it follows...

I think everyone missed the point. And Destiny didn't give a good example. I think it's better to ask = what if My God told me x is true. And the other person said My god told me Y is true. How do we solve that argument?

"Murder is good because God told me so" "How would you feel if I blew your brains out right here, right now?" The answer is the objective truth of the situation. Doesnt matter if God told someone murder is good if they say they dont want to be murdered right then. Therefore murder is bad.

had this same argument with a guy i used to know, he was a smart guy but when i pointed out this falicy in his logic that presupositionalism is circular, he just told me "yeah but it still works", no it doesn't. i'm glad to find someone with the same idea.

Obviously two people who believe in different gods cannot agree on the moral teaching that are in conflict. And revelations have to be tested for authenticity. You cannot just believe any crazy person who claims to have gotten a moral revelation.

The guy asking the question here is correct. There is no real way to figure out who is right and who is wrong, and THIS is why it's bad to base your morality on a religious system, because we ACTUALLY HAVE RELIGIONS IN THIS WORLD THAT SANCTION MURDER, CHILD RAPE, ETC.

Another reason to show that morality isn't grounded by God It's a by-product of human intelligence (it's just common sense)

This a waste of time. The more important question is, does God know what it feel like

Excellent point.

Bad example this moral question is outlined for christians. Aren't you going to rely on presuposition for moral questions of right and wrong regardless?

It’s a question of objective morality and yes it is real because there is a universal truth and an objective reality. The taking of an innocent human life is always wrong. Anyone saying otherwise is objectively wrong. Judgement day will come for all of us.